IF there are any aliens hovering above us.. i would be very wary of them.

What logical reason would they have for coming here?

Of course they would be incomprehensibly more advanced than us so discussing this makes no sense seeing how we couldn't relate to them in any kind of
way.

But i see only two possibilities.

They're neutral:
They're here simply to learn and observe.
And only interfere when we are about to commit global suicide.
Helping us any sooner wouldn't make sense, they wouldn't be able to learn from our evolution anymore since they would be the cause of it.

OR, they're hostile:
Seeing how we are reluctant to learn from our mistakes, and our only successful parts of civilization thrive on greed. They would quickly take over to
make use of our resources.

"But maybe they see themselves as ''Saviors of the universe'' and are actually here to help us!"

No.

Take a look around.. wouldn't they have done so a long time ago?

Besides that too.. doesn't make sense.
When we see apes in the wild, tearing their siblings limbs off.. we don't go in there to give them anger management classes.
It's always best to not interfere with other species.. evolution is doing a perfect job, you can only make it worse.
To them, humankind is comparable to a blind fetus at best, we are not ready to encounter any of their ways.

Originally posted by Skaffa
IF there are any aliens hovering above us.. i would be very wary of them.

What logical reason would they have for coming here?

Of course they would be incomprehensibly more advanced than us so discussing this makes no sense seeing how we couldn't relate to them in any kind of
way.

But i see only two possibilities.

They're neutral:
They're here simply to learn and observe.
And only interfere when we are about to commit global suicide.
Helping us any sooner wouldn't make sense, they wouldn't be able to learn from our evolution anymore since they would be the cause of it.

OR, they're hostile:
Seeing how we are reluctant to learn from our mistakes, and our only successful parts of civilization thrive on greed. They would quickly take over to
make use of our resources.

"But maybe they see themselves as ''Saviors of the universe'' and are actually here to help us!"

No.

Take a look around.. wouldn't they have done so a long time ago?

Besides that too.. doesn't make sense.
When we see apes in the wild, tearing their siblings limbs off.. we don't go in there to give them anger management classes.
It's always best to not interfere with other species.. evolution is doing a perfect job, you can only make it worse.
To them, humankind is comparable to a blind fetus at best, we are not ready to encounter any of their ways.

edit on 9-7-2013 by Skaffa because:
(no reason given)

I agree almost 100 percent.

If the aliens have the ability to communicate with us, then they would be able to relate to us by that fact alone. Would they have any reason to
communicate with us? Without knowing their motives, we can only speculate.

I tend to believe that evolution in the universe likely is guided by the same rules everywhere. We may not know all the rules, but logic dictates
that if that is true, then aliens may have many of the same motives and needs that would be common to all living things. One of the most important is
self-preservation. It just might be that if aliens are visiting us, they are doing so with that in mind. We could one day become a threat, so they
monitor us. If we are not directly competing with them, then why would they feel the need to destroy us? We don't intentionally destroy a lower
species such as crocodiles, although unfortunately we do inadvertently. But we would certainly destroy them if they suddenly gained enough
intelligence that they began attacking us en mass. If we were not in some kind of direct competition with them, then it makes no sense that they
would be hostile.

If aliens were these benevolent beings that want to ensure that we do not destroy ourselves, then that might tie in with the ancient astronaut theory,
and all that is associated with it. I don't completely rule it out, but I am skeptical.

I dont know if aliens exist or not. If they do, I dont know their agenda or if they are benevolent or malevolent.
I dont have any proof.

But, let us think a bit and put some perspective into this.
Everyday, scientists go into the wilderness catch examples of whatever species they want (a mammal, a bird, etc), file a report and tag it. Then, they
release it into nature. Sometimes they take that example into lab and heal the animal (in order to release it again on its natural habitat).

On the perspective of the animal being studied/captured that must be an extremely traumatic experience, with an incredible amount of stress, and
he/her doesnt know if he is going to be killed, eaten or survive such an experience. Sometimes he even gets an tag or electronic device "implanted"
on his body.
The animal probably will never "understand" to happened to him/her (and die without ever knowing).
See what I mean?

I know nothing (I mean for sure, beyond doubt nor do I possess proof of anything) but if they (Aliens/Visitors) were/are hostile, why are taking so
long (decades, centuries, milennia(?)) to make their move and anihilate/eat us?

And why did they waited for us to get so technologically developed to pose a more substantial resistance to them than a century ago? or 500 years
ago?

Just doesn´t make sense.

_______________________
We are a blink of an eye from being fully aware.

Of course they do not constitute irrefutable proof. However, to state there is no evidence suggestive of intelligent extraterrestrial life simply
belies the facts. Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We
certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and
extraterrestrial life. However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.”

Stanton Friedman, The Case for the Extraterrestrial Origin of Flying Saucers, 1995

I still fail to understand why people don't make any difference between "evidence about the UFO reality" and "evidence regarding ET visitation".
To make such claims and connections IS actually a close-minded approach. I, just like the thousands of people who have seen these close and clear
enough, am 100% sure that there is something weird happening in our skies, something beyond our current comprehension and knowledge.

Evidence for UFOs (nut-and-bolt crafts doing mind-bending manouvers) does not equal to evidence of ET visitation. This is a closed-minded stance, to
say the least!

I still fail to understand why people don't make any difference between "evidence about the UFO reality" and "evidence regarding ET
visitation"...Evidence for UFOs (nut-and-bolt crafts doing mind-bending manouvers) does not equal to evidence of ET visitation. This is a
closed-minded stance, to say the least!

Because they "want to believe" in ET. It's becoming a new religion.

The strange part is all the close encounters, channeling etc which encourage this view while utterly contradicting each other. The best argument
against the ET hypothesis is the absurdity and scale of the phenomenon. I simply have a hard time believing that ET would come to Earth just to act
like a 12 year old with the keys to a Lamborghini.

However it seems quite possible that whatever is behind the phenomenon, wants people to believe in ET. Because that's the effect that the phenomenon
has had. We're being manipulated, big time.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
It seems that it is now fashionable to take a less positive view of the ETH ( I personally think the truth is a rich mixture of scenarios that is
beyond our present level of comprehension ).

This doesn't surprise me at all.

Fanatics tend to religionize everything.

They polarize everything.

Its "us against them" mentality.

If you're not with them, you're against them; therefore you're wrong and/or evil.

What they don't realize is their demons are an inner working of themselves and make everyone around them suffer for it; becoming a never-ending
cycle.

If they had their way, the earth would still be flat and at the center of everything.

Our main activity would be condemning people with different ideas or just plain different

basically they conclude that UFO phenomena exisst and what it is they dont know.

its pure arrogance to say UFO = ET when there are no evidence at all (except false claim and lies)

those who believe ETH are those :
- who think UFO crashes happened like the myth in roswell
- those who try to explain UFO in wholly physical terms when in fact the majority of documented cases do not point to physica manifestation only.
- those who believe in ET existence so bad that they blindly claim ETH and cherry pick ufo cases to support their claim (keyhoe, swords, etc)

Considering that we have yet to explore our own planet fully, I would put the ET hypothesis at a lower possibility it is not like like there is many
astronomical observations of UFOs in Sol system (we have some on the Moon and Mars, specifically bodies that we are ourselves interested in
colonizing) and none that I know from beyond. It is like having a pretty blue shinny petri-dish full of life and upon finding some fluorescence on its
rim to claim it is outside contamination when there is to the observer some degree of certainty that it is sterile at least in the region of several
soccer fields around that dish of ever changing goo that he as yet to fully understand...

It may be ETs but considering our understanding of things and available information putting them outside of our solar system as a certain or primary
option seems unreasonable to me. All "evidence" we have toward that fact is second hand reports of what those entities may have communicated or even
reportedly shown in loco to a few of us.

Considering that we have yet to explore our own planet fully, I would put the ET hypothesis at a lower possibility it is not like like there is many
astronomical observations of UFOs in Sol system (we have some on the Moon and Mars, specifically bodies that we are ourselves interested in
colonizing) and none that I know from beyond. It is like having a pretty blue shinny petri-dish full of life and upon finding some fluorescence on its
rim to claim it is outside contamination when there is to the observer some degree of certainty that it is sterile at least in the region of several
soccer fields around that dish of ever changing goo that he as yet to fully understand...

It may be ETs but considering our understanding of things and available information putting them outside of our solar system as a certain or primary
option seems unreasonable to me. All "evidence" we have toward that fact is second hand reports of what those entities may have communicated or even
reportedly shown in loco to a few of us.

edit on 9-7-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

My post was based purely upon speculation. I believe that few people, if anyone from the general population knows where they actually come from, and
I won't even say that I 100 percent believe that aliens are visiting Earth at all. All I know for certain is something we can't explain at the
present time is happening. I do enjoy speculating on their existence, and where they may be from. The ET argument is just one I would not rule out
if aliens that visit Earth do indeed exist. The reason I might lean toward the ET argument is that our galaxy and universe is tangible, but not so
other dimensions. I do agree that if these beings do exist, they very well could be from our own planet as well.

Originally posted by birdhead
The public just does not have enough available facts to do more than speculate concerning any hypothesis. .....
I would lean toward the extraterrestrial hypothesis based upon available evidence, and based upon eye witness accounts by individuals of the stature
of astronauts such as Cooper and Mitchell among others.

I am unaware of any eyewitness UFO reports by Mitchell. What am I missing, please?

And from the OP's opening,

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury), November 9, 1978:
"I believe that these extra-terrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets, which obviously are a little more
technically advanced than we are here on earth.”
“Every day, in the USA, our radar instruments capture objects of form and composition unknown to us. And there are thousands of witness reports
and a quantity of documents to prove this.”

... I recognize the first sentence from his UN letter, but can't find the original source of the second, sometimes attributed to an interview with a
French reporter named Ferrando, as far as I recall. Does anyone know of the actual source? Or was that in the UN letter too?

I won't even say that I 100 percent believe that aliens are visiting Earth at all.

Well in that I don't agree I'm fully convinced that a minor percentage of the UFO reported do not conform to our "human civilization" past and
present capabilities (even if I agree that as time goes by it becomes harder to state that it is something that we can't do ourselves).

To me the turning point (resulting for an accumulation of event reports and a better view of the world around myself) was the Colares incident were it
was clear that even the military couldn't make head or tails about the issue and were themselves terrified, the strangeness of the occurrence and the
large number of witnesses that are in large majority simple people. There is no chance that it was a hoax and a very small chance of foul play by an
human agency.

Your post is mothing but an appeal to authority, and you don't quote many unbiased "authorities."

Here:
"A stone cannot fall from the sky - there ARE no stones in the sky."

Antione Lavoisier - Father of Modern Chemistry:

Lavoisier is most noted for his discovery of the role oxygen plays in combustion. He recognized and named oxygen (1778) and hydrogen (1783) and
disproved the phlogiston theory, which was universally accepted in his time. Lavoisier helped construct the metric system, wrote the first extensive
list of elements, and helped to reform chemical nomenclature. He predicted the existence of silicon (1787)[3] and was also the first to establish that
sulfur was an element (1777) rather than a compound.[4] He discovered that, although matter may change its form or shape, its mass always remains the
same.

Overall, his contributions are considered the most important in advancing chemistry to the level reached in physics and mathematics during the 18th
century.

It may be ETs but considering our understanding of things and available information putting them outside of our solar system as a certain or primary
option seems unreasonable to me. All "evidence" we have toward that fact is second hand reports of what those entities may have communicated or even
reportedly shown in loco to a few of us.

edit on 9-7-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

That doesn't apply to those who have witnessed something.
"I know what I saw."

Agree but since there is no consistency, not even the message I do not think we have the basis to determine its validity. I truly believe some people
experience very bizarre events, but I also keep in mind that some of the reports are false, the people perception of them maybe off or they were
simply fulled intentionally in any case I remove any importance from every single message since the medium selected is simply not the best to transmit
it.

Had I needed to make humanity aware of a specific insight I could easily came up with several methodologies that wouldn't even require direct
contact, or even disclosure of my capabilities, this to me goes in parallel with the validity of religious messages had they been important there
would be better means available to make them known or at least indisputable, I do not know any good argumentation against this facts...

Even if this were "all in the head" of those reporting the sightings, when MILLIONS of people
report the same thing, it is worthy of investigation.
Instead we get ridicule and isolation.

abduction, i am thinking on how the now-available knowledge of abduction stories influenced the mind of people to think they been abducted. and if
hypnosis is the primary mean of extracting information about the abduction then its not reliable as proof. Plenty of witness said the abduction
happenend outside the body (eg non physical abduction aka spiritual abduction), some even said to saw their own bodies in the car (unconscious) while
they are taken inside something, or the Khoury Succubus incident when he admits he 'saw' the incident like a 3rd party (aka seeing his own body like
an outside observer). I think Occultism and Demonology can explain abduction cases while tying it to 'ufo' or 'et' will just like playing into the
deception of the beings doing the abductions

abduction researchers are not without fail, dr hopkins also get taken by the hoaxer linda napolitano. if a researcher dont do his field investigation
thoroughly and very much willing to believe in the witness without checking then he will (like hopkins) get taken by hoaxer.

as for nuke weapon UFO flyby, i thought its only few cases. otherwise if its a consistent happening as general rule then every nuke reactor and
weapons facilities around the world (russian, china, NKorea, etc)will have visit from these UFO things, but do we have documentation saying that
happened ?

as for nuke weapon UFO flyby, i thought its only few cases. otherwise if its a consistent happening as general rule then every nuke reactor and
weapons facilities around the world (russian, china, NKorea, etc)will have visit from these UFO things, but do we have documentation saying that
happened ?

edit on 13-7-2013 by milomilo because: (no reason given)

Agreed - consistency is hard to find, hard to define too, but when millions of people report similar things, well . . .

The nuke correlation - again, the locations of these facilities are generally classified, so making a study is hard.
Again "proof" is probably impossible, both for data collection reasons and the strict standards different people would define as convincing.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.